US scientists repeat fusion power breakthrough, Financial Times reports

reuters.com

12 pointsplacesalt4 comments

There is a massive gap between "a lab which can do fusion once every six months" and "a power plant which can do fusion more than once per second".

And "net energy" is still a bit of an accounting hoax; it's only net energy if you only count some of the inputs.

If anything, this is an acknowledgement that they haven't made any useful breakthrough.

Thank you. I hoped some one would say it as to not waste time.

But doesn’t this actually signal progress?

At this point knowing that it’s possible, the challenges turn to make it repeatable, predictable, and cheaper.

Sure we might still be decades away, but is anybody implying otherwise?

The word "breakthrough" tends to imply something more than "we still don't know it's possible; and if it is possible, we are only closer to the next accomplishment because of the linear nature of time rather than any actual progress towards our goals".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com